AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Pw Test Review

skill-igorsolop0-qa-claude-skills-pw-test-review · by Igorsolop0

Review Playwright tests (TypeScript/JavaScript) for known anti-patterns and reliability issues — networkidle abuse, missing await, nested describe, beforeAll with shared state, toContainText false positives, unchecked goto status, weak locators, force clicks, hardcoded sleeps, list-iteration false positives (`.all()`/`count()` without `toHaveCount`), positional and strict-mode locator ambiguity (…

No reviews yet
0 installs
31 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-igorsolop0-qa-claude-skills-pw-test-review

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-igorsolop0-qa-claude-skills-pw-test-review)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
2mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Pw Test Review? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

pw-test-review

Behavioral review of Playwright tests — find anti-patterns that cause flakes, false positives, slow runs, or hidden bugs. Not a stylistic linter.

When this skill applies

Trigger on requests like:

  • "Review this playwright test"
  • "Is this test good / flaky / OK?"
  • "Why is this test flaky?"
  • "Code smell in this PW spec"
  • "PR review for playwright"
  • A .spec.ts / .test.ts / e2e file shared without explicit instructions — assume review.

If the user shares a whole directory, scan all .spec.ts / .test.ts files; otherwise focus on what they share.

Workflow

  1. Read the test code. For each file the user supplies — open it, look at the actual contents. Don't review off vibes.
  2. Walk the anti-pattern catalog. Read references/anti-patterns.md and check each item against the code. The catalog is organized by priority — work top-down, capture line numbers and code snippets as you go.
  3. Context-aware bumps. If the user mentions money / iGaming / fintech / KYC / balances, raise the priority of toContainText and unchecked response.status() findings by one level. They cause silent bugs in those domains.
  4. Write the report. Use the structure in references/output-template.md. Skip empty sections. Cite line numbers. One sentence per "why" — explain mechanism, not policy.
  5. Don't fabricate. If a category has no findings, omit it. Better three sharp findings than ten wobbly ones. Always include a "What's good" section — tells the author what to keep.

Philosophy

The user is a senior QA engineer. They value root-cause reasoning over rules. For every finding, the "why" should explain the mechanism by which the pattern causes a problem — not "the docs say so", not "best practice". If you can't justify a finding by mechanism, drop it.

This is a behavioral review. Don't nitpick formatting, variable naming, semicolons, import order, or stylistic preferences — that's what ESLint and Prettier are for. Focus on patterns that cause real flakes, false positives, slow runs, or hidden bugs.

References

  • references/anti-patterns.md — full catalog of patterns to flag, grouped Critical → Low, with mechanism and fix for each.
  • references/output-template.md — exact output structure.

Open both at the start of every review.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.